Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS5573575 A
Publication typeGrant
Application numberUS 08/343,888
Publication dateNov 12, 1996
Filing dateNov 16, 1994
Priority dateDec 3, 1993
Fee statusPaid
Also published asUS5431717, US5611839, US5800593, US7641714, US8029598, US20090035833, US20100199808
Publication number08343888, 343888, US 5573575 A, US 5573575A, US-A-5573575, US5573575 A, US5573575A
InventorsWilliam J. Kohr
Original AssigneeGeobiotics, Inc.
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Method for rendering refractory sulfide ores more susceptible to biooxidation
US 5573575 A
Abstract
A method of recovering precious metal values from refractory sulfide ores is provided. The method includes the steps of separating clays and fines from a crushed refractory sulfide ore, forming a heap from the refractory sulfide ore, producing a concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals from the separated fines and adding the concentrate to the heap, bioleaching the heap to thereby oxidize iron sulfides contained therein, and hydrometallurgically treating the bioleached ore to recover precious metal values contained therein.
Images(4)
Previous page
Next page
Claims(13)
I claim:
1. A method for recovering precious metal values from a crushed precious metal bearing refractory sulfide ore, the process comprising:
a. separating the crushed refractory sulfide ore into a fines fraction and a coarse fraction;
b. forming a heap with the coarse fraction of the refractory sulfide ore;
c. producing a concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals from the fines fraction;
d. adding the concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals to the heap;
e. biooxidizing the ore in the heap, including the concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals; and
f. hydrometallurgically treating the biooxidized ore to recover precious metal values.
2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the hydrometallurgical treatment of the biooxidized ore comprises leaching the heap with a lixiviant selected from the group consisting of cyanide and thiourea.
3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the recovered precious metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and platinum.
4. A method according to claim 1, wherein the recovered precious metal is gold.
5. A method according to claim 1, wherein the crushed ore is separated into the fines fraction and the coarse fraction by a method selected from the group consisting of wet screening and dry screening.
6. A method for recovering precious metal values from a crushed precious metal bearing refractory sulfide ore, the process comprising:
a. separating fines from a crushed refractory sulfide ore into a fines fraction and a coarse fraction; the fines fraction including particles of clay;
b. forming a heap with the coarse fraction of the refractory sulfide ore;
c. removing clay particles from the fines fraction;
d. producing a concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals and a tail from the clay depleted fines fraction;
e. hydrometallurgically treating the clay particles and the tail to recover precious metal values contained therein.
f. adding the concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals to the heap;
g. biooxidizing the ore in the heap, including the concentrate of refractory sulfide materials; and
h. hydrometallurgically treating the biooxidized ore to recover precious metal values.
7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the hydrometallurgical treatment of the biooxidized ore comprises leaching said heap with a lixiviant selected from the group consisting of cyanide and thiourea.
8. A method according to claim 6, wherein the hydrometallurgical treatment of the clay particles and the tail comprises a mill cyanide leaching process selected from the group consisting of counter current decantation and carbon-in-pulp.
9. A method according to claim 6, wherein the recovered precious metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and platinum.
10. A method according to claim 6, wherein the recovered precious metal is gold.
11. A method according to claim 6, wherein the crushed ore is separated into the fines fraction and a coarse fraction by a method selected from the group consisting of wet screening and dry screening.
12. A method according to claim 6, wherein the concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals is produced from the clay depleted fines fraction by flotation.
13. A method according to claim 6, wherein the concentrate of refractory sulfide minerals is produced from the clay depleted fines fraction by gravity separation.
Description

This is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/161,742, filed on Dec. 3, 1993 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,431,717.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to the recovery of metal values from refractory sulfide and refractory carbonaceous sulfide ores.

2. Description of the Prior Art

Gold is one of the rarest metals on earth. Gold ores can be categorized into two types: free milling and refractory. Free milling ores are those that can be processed by simple gravity techniques or direct cyanidation. Refractory ores, on the other hand, are not amenable to conventional cyanidation treatment. Such ores are often refractory because of their excessive content of metallic sulfides (e.g., pyrite) and/or organic carbonaceous matter.

A large number of refractory ores consist of ores with a precious metal such as gold occluded in iron sulfide particles.

The iron sulfide particles consist principally of pyrite and arsenopyrite. Precious metal values are frequently occluded within the sulfide mineral. For example, gold often occurs as finely disseminated sub-microscopic particles within a refractory sulfide host of pyrite or arsenopyrite. If the gold remains occluded within the sulfide host, even after grinding, then the sulfides must be oxidized to liberate the encapsulated precious metal values and make them amenable to a leaching agent (or lixiviant).

A number of processes for oxidizing the sulfide minerals to liberate the precious metal values are well known in the art. One known method of oxidizing the metal sulfides in the ore is to use bacteria, such as Thiobacillus ferrooxidans, Sulfolobus, Acidianus species and facultative-thermophilic bacteria in a microbial pretreatment. The foregoing microorganisms oxidize the iron sulfide particles to cause the solubilization of iron as ferric iron, and sulfide, as sulfate ion.

If the refractory ore being processed is a carbonaceous sulfide ore, then additional process steps may be required following microbial pretreatment to prevent preg-robbing of the aurocyanide complex or other precious metal-lixiviant complexes by the native carbonaceous matter upon treatment with a lixiviant.

As used herein, sulfide ore or refractory sulfide ore will be understood to also encompass refractory carbonaceous sulfide ores.

A known method of bioleaching carbonaceous sulfide ores is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,729,788, issued Mar. 8, 1988, which is hereby incorporated by reference. According to the disclosed process, thermophilic bacteria, such as Sulfolobus and facultative-thermophilic bacteria, are used to oxidize the sulfide constituents of the ore. The bioleached ore is then treated with a blanking agent to inhibit the preg-robbing propensity of the carbonaceous component of the ore. The precious metals are then extracted from the ore using a conventional lixiviant of cyanide or thiourea.

Another known method of bioleaching carbonaceous sulfide ores is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,127,942, issued Jul. 7, 1992, which is hereby incorporated by reference. According to this method, the ore is subjected to an oxidative bioleach to oxidize the sulfide component of the ore and liberate the precious metal values. The ore is then inoculated with a bacterial consortium in the presence of nutrients therefor to promote the growth of the bacterial consortium, the bacterial consortium being characterized by the property of deactivating the preg-robbing propensity of the carbonaceous matter in the ore. In other words, the bacterial consortium functions as a biological blanking agent. Following treatment with the microbial consortium capable of deactivating the precious-metal-adsorbing carbon, the ore is then leached with an appropriate lixiviant to cause the dissolution of the precious metal in the ore.

Problems exist, however, with employing bioleaching processes in a heap leaching environment. These include nutrient access, air access, and carbon dioxide access for making the process more efficient and thus an attractive treatment option. Moreover, for biooxidation, the induction times concerning biooxidants, the growth cycles, viability of the bacteria and the like are important considerations because the variables such as accessibility, particle size, settling, compaction and the like are economically irreversible once a heap has been constructed. As a result, heaps cannot be repaired once formed, except on a limited basis.

Ores that have a high clay and/or fines content are especially problematic when processing in a heap leaching or heap biooxidation process. The reason for this is that the clay and/or fines can migrate through the heap and plug channels of air and liquid flow, resulting in puddling; channelling; nutrient-, carbon dioxide-, or oxygen-starving; uneven biooxidant distribution, and the like. As a result, large areas of the heap may be blinded off and ineffectively leached. This is a common problem in cyanide leaching and has lead to processes of particle agglomeration with cement for high pH cyanide leaching and with polymers for low pH bioleaching. Polymer agglomerate aids may also be used in high pH environments, which are customarily used for leaching the precious metals, following oxidative bioleaching of the iron sulfides in the ore.

Biooxidation of refractory sulfide ores is especially sensitive to blocked percolation channels by loose clay and fine material because the bacteria need large amounts of air or oxygen to grow and biooxidize the iron sulfide particles in the ore. Air flow is also important to dissipate heat generated by the exothermic biooxidation reaction, because excessive heat can kill the growing bacteria in a large, poorly ventilated heap.

Ores that are low in sulfide or pyrite, or ores that are high in acid consuming materials such as calcium carbonate or other carbonates, may also be problematic when processing in a heap biooxidation. The reason for this is that the acid generated by these low pyrite ores is insufficient to maintain a low pH and high iron concentrate needed for bacteria growth.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a heap bioleaching process of the type described above, wherein the refractory sulfide ore is rendered more susceptible to biooxidation, thereby providing improved recovery of the precious metal values contained within the ore. The method of the present invention achieves this object by removing the clays and/or fines from the refractory sulfide ore after it is crushed to a size appropriate for a heap leaching process. The heap may then be formed without concern of the air and liquid flow channels in the heap becoming plugged. Further, if the separated clay and/or fine material has a sufficiently high precious metal content, it may be separately treated to recover the precious metal values contained therein.

The above and other objects, features and advantages will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following description of the preferred embodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING

FIG. 1 is a schematic of a process flow sheet according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a graph illustrating the percent iron leached over time for various size fractions of ore;

FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating the percent iron leached per day as a function of time for various size fractions of ore;

FIG. 4 is a graph illustrating the percent gold recovered from a pyrite concentrate milled to -200 mesh as a function of its percent biooxidation;

FIG. 5 is a graph illustrating the change in Eh of a column of + 1/4 inch ore as a function of time;

FIG. 6 is a graph illustrating the change in pH as a function of time for a column of + 1/4 inch ore; and

FIG. 7 is a graph illustrating the change in iron concentration in the effluent of a column of + 1/4 inch ore as a function of time.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

By the method according to the present embodiment of the invention, refractory sulfide ores can be rendered more susceptible to biooxidation in a heap leaching process. This is accomplished by separating the clay and/or fine materials from the refractory sulfide ore after it has been crushed to a size appropriate for heap leaching. In the present embodiment the method of removal is wet size screening. It will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, however, that any other method for separating the clay and/or fine material from the refractory ore may be used. For example, dry screening and cyclone classifying are well known to those skilled in the art.

By removing the fines and clays from the refractory sulfide ore, the air and liquid flow through the heap is improved. This will reduce the time required to sufficiently biooxidize the iron sulfide particles in the ore to liberate the precious metal values and make them amenable to subsequent lixivation with cyanide or thiourea, preferably cyanide. In addition to faster biooxidation, in a well ventilated heap, having good fluid flow, it becomes more feasible to change the pH from an acidic pH of 1.0 to 2.0 that is best for biooxidation to a basic pH of 10.0 or more needed for cyanide leaching without remaking or restacking the heap.

The refractory sulfide ore is preferably crushed to a target maximum size in the range of approximately 1/4 to 1 inch. Appropriate target maximum particle sizes include 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, and 1 inch. If the ore will pass sizes, it should be amenable to heap leaching. The smaller the particle size, however, the greater the surface area of the sulfide particles in the ore and, of course, the faster the sulfide particles will be biooxidized. Increased recovery of the precious metal values should also result. This, however, must be weighed against the additional cost of crushing the ore to a smaller particle size. The additional amount of precious metal recovered may not justify the added cost.

Of course if the refractory sulfide ore body being treated is already an appropriate size for heap leaching, no additional crushing is required.

Fines are naturally produced during the crushing process. The size of the fines and clays removed from the crushed ore should be about minus 60 mesh as a minimum upper limit to about minus 1/8 inch as a maximum upper limit. After the clay and fines are separated from the bulk of the ore, a heap is formed with the ore. The heap may then be treated with a standard bioleaching process to oxidize the iron sulfide particles in the ore and liberate the occluded precious metal values, which are preferably gold. Because the majority of the clay and fine materials have been removed, obstruction of the air and liquid flow channels by these materials is no longer a concern, thereby improving percolation leaching of the ore.

After biooxidation, the precious metal in the pretreated ore can be extracted using a conventional lixiviant such as cyanide or thiourea, preferably cyanide. Of course, however, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, if the refractory sulfide ore is also refractory due to carbonaceous matter contained in the ore, additional processing steps must be employed to reduce the preg-robbing propensity of the ore prior to lixivation. A number of such processes are well known in the art.

For example, the methods used in U.S. Pat. No. 4,729,788 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,127,942, both of which have already been incorporated herein by reference, can be used. Further, the microbial process for treating carbonaceous ores disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,162,105, issued Nov. 10, 1992, hereby incorporated by reference, can also be used.

The fine material that has been separated may contain large amounts of precious metal values. Indeed the economic value of these metal values may be sufficiently high to justify further processing of these materials to recover the additional metal values. In a particularly preferred embodiment of the present invention, the separated fine material is further processed to recover at least a portion of the precious metal values contained therein.

To recover the precious metal values from the fine material, the fine material is preferably treated in a mill process to remove the iron sulfide particles from the clay and sand particles. The reason for this is that, as discussed above, precious metal values, especially gold, often occur as finely disseminated microscopic particles within the iron sulfide particles. These fine sulfide particles, therefore, frequently contain a significant portion of the overall precious metal values. Further, because a relatively high percentage of the precious metal values in the ore are associated with this fraction of the ore, they can be economically treated in a mill process.

As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, a variety of methods can be used to separate the iron sulfide particles from the remainder of the fines. These methods include, by way of example only, gravity separation and flotation. If desired, the iron sulfide particles can be subjected to additional grinding before flotation. Gravity separation techniques that can be used include shaker tables, hydrocyclones, and spiral classifiers.

The iron sulfide concentrate, if refractory, is preferably bioleached with bacteria in a tank or mill process to liberate the occluded precious metal values. Alternatively, the sulfide concentrate can be added back to the heap to allow for a slower heap biooxidation process. However, because these particles are typically larger and more hydrophobic than clay particles, they tend to stick more readily to the larger particles in the heap, and, thus, the problem of obstructed percolation channels is not encountered. The iron sulfide concentrate can also be treated by a variety of other methods well known in the art such as roasting, pressure oxidation, and chemical oxidation. Because the concentration of gold or other precious metal values is relatively high in this ore fraction and its overall volume small, all of these mill processes may be economically utilized.

If tile iron sulfide concentrate is only partially refractory, then it can be directly leached with a lixiviant such as cyanide to remove the nonrefractory gold. The tail from this leaching process could then be washed free of cyanide and added to the heap for biooxidation to release the remaining refractory gold or other precious metal values.

The fine material removed from the refractory sulfide ore by size separation, and which has also had the iron sulfide particles removed from it, may still contain economic values of gold or other precious metals. Further, this fine material is likely to be less refractory than other iron sulfide material if the size has lead to oxidation. Therefore, agglomeration of this material with cement, or other agglomeration aids that can be used at a high pH, may provide good recoveries if leached with cyanide directly.

The fine material may have sufficient gold value in the case of high grade ore to merit a mill leaching process such as carbon-in-pulp or counter current decantation.

A more recently preferred embodiment of the present invention is now described in connection with the process flow sheet illustrated in FIG. 1.

As can be seen from referring to FIG. 1, a precious metal bearing refractory sulfide ore is preferably crushed to a target maximum size in the range of approximately 1/4 to 1 inch at crushing station 10. Preferably the ore is crushed to a target maximum particle size of 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, or 3/4 inch. Of course, if the refractory sulfide ore body being treated is already of an appropriate size for heap leaching, no additional crushing is required.

As in the present embodiment, the precious metal to be recovered from the ore is typically gold. However, as those skilled in the art will readily recognize, the method according to the present invention is equally applicable to the recovery of other precious metals, including silver and platinum from refractory sulfide ores.

After the gold bearing refractory sulfide ore is crushed to the appropriate size, the fines in the ore are separated from the crushed ore at separation station 12. Preferably the fines are separated using a wet or dry screening process. To ensure good air and liquid flow in the heap, fines smaller than about 10 to 30 mesh (Tyler mesh series) should be separated out at separation station 12. The coarse fraction of the ore 14, that is the ore greater than about 10 to 30 mesh, will typically contain approximately 50% or more of the gold values in the entire ore and comprise about 50 to 75% of the weight of the ore. The fines 16 that have been separated out will typically contain approximately 30 to 50% of the gold values and comprise approximately 25 to 50% of the weight of the initial ore.

Because of the significant gold values typically contained in the fines 16, the fines are further processed to recover at least a portion of the precious metal values contained therein. This is preferably accomplished by producing a concentrate 20 of refractory pyrite minerals from the fines 16 in the pyrite concentration circuit 22. Pyrite concentrate 20 will typically comprise about 5 to 10% of the initial weight of the ore and about 15 to 30% of its gold values.

If the ore contains refractory arsenopyrite minerals, then refractory pyrite concentrate 20 will also contain these minerals.

Because, as a general rule, the pyrite particles in the pyrite concentrate 20 are larger and more hydrophobic than the clay particles found in fines 16, the pyrite concentrate 20 can be combined with the coarse fraction of the ore 14 during heap construction without significantly impeding fluid and air flow within the heap during bioleaching. This is because the pyrite particles in pyrite concentrate 20 will tend to stick to the larger particles in the coarse fraction of the ore, rather than migrating through the heap and causing blocked flow channels. Pyrite concentrate 20, may also be added to the top of the heap before or after the biooxidation process is already in progress.

The bacterial oxidation of pyrite generates ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid in the net reaction summarized by Equation (1). This net reaction can be broken into two distinct reactions, Equations (2) and (3), where Equation (2) is the aerobic reaction catalyzed by bacterial activity and Equation (3) is the anaerobic reaction occurring at the surface of the sulfide mineral. Equation (4) is a similar anaerobic reaction occurring at the surface of arsenopyrite minerals.

FeS2 +7/202 +H2 OFeSO4 +H2 SO4(1)

14FeSO4 +7H2 SO4 +7/202 =+7H2 O+7Fe2 (SO4)3                                          (2)

7Fe2 (SO4)3 +FeS2 +8H2 O =15FeSO4 +8H2 SO4                                                  (3)

13Fe2 (SO4)3 +2FeAsS+16H2 O=20FeSO4 +2H3 AsO4 +13H2 SO4                             (4)

An advantage of adding pyrite concentrate 20 to heap 18 is that this fine milled pyrite is more readily oxidized than the pyrite mineral particles found in coarse ore 14; thus, the acid produced from the oxidation of the pyrite concentrate can be used to help lower the p H of the coarse ore in the heap more quickly. This is especially valuable when dealing with ores that are high in acid consuming materials such as calcium carbonate or other carbonates. Further, by adding the pyrite concentrate to the top of heap 18, ferric ions produced during its biooxidation will migrate to the lower part of the heap where bacterial growth may be inhibited due to toxins, which have not been washed from the ore early in the biooxidation process, or due to the lack of oxygen. As a result, biooxidation of the pyrite minerals in the lower part of the heap will proceed even if bacterial growth is not favored in this region.

There is also an advantage to adding pyrite concentrate to a heap 18 that has been undergoing biooxidation for a long period of time. In the later stages of biooxidation most of the exposed and reactive sulfides will have already been oxidized, resulting in a slow down in the rate of biooxidation. This slow down in the rate of biooxidation can lead to a drop in iron levels and an increase in pH within heap 18. Addition of a reactive sulfide concentrate can restart an active biooxidation process that can increase indirect chemical leaching of imbedded sulfide minerals due to the high ferric levels produced from the biooxidation of the sulfide concentrate.

The preferred methods of producing pyrite concentrate 20 are explained in detail below in connection with pyrite concentration circuit 22.

After heap 18 is constructed, it may be pretreated using a standard heap biooxidation process to oxidize the iron sulfide particles in the ore and liberate the occluded precious metal values. And, because the majority of the clay and fine materials have been removed, obstruction of the air and liquid flow channels by these materials is significantly reduced, resulting in improved percolation leaching of the ore.

If the bioleachate solution is recycled during the biooxidation process, the biooxidation rate can be improved by using the method of solution management disclosed in the U.S. Pat. Application entitled "Method For Improving The Heap Biooxidation Rate Of Refractory Sulfide Ore Particles That Are Biooxidized Using Recycled Bioleachate Solution," which was filed Oct. 25, 1994, by William J. Kohr, Chris Johansson, John Shield, and Vandy Shrader, the text of which is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.

Referring again to FIG. 1, pyrite concentration circuit 22 is now described. Three methods of producing pyrite concentrate 20 are illustrated within pyrite concentration circuit 22. These methods may be used in combination or in the alternative.

The fines 16 will typically comprise very fine clay particles, which are typically less than 5 to 20 μm; sand particles; and refractory sulfide particles. The clay particles are very small and very hydrophilic in comparison to the sand and refractory sulfide particles, making them particularly deleterious to heap bioleaching processes, because they tend to migrate through the heap and plug flow channels as they swell from the absorption of water. The clay particles are, therefore, preferably removed from the fines 16 so that a concentrate of refractory sulfide particles can be produced that can be safely added to heap 18 with minimal obstruction of the flow channels in the heap. Thus, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the first step in each of the preferred methods of producing pyrite concentrate 20 is the removal of the clay particles from the fines using clay removal system 24, which is preferably a hydrocyclone or a settling tank. Of course, however, if the ore is a low clay bearing ore, this step may be omitted.

The set point for the maximum size particle removed in clay removal system 24 will depend on the distribution of clay particle sizes within fines 16. If the set point for the clay removal system is set at less than about 10 μm, a settling tank is the preferred removal method of seperation because hydrocyclones cannot currently make efficient separations between particle sizes of less than about 10 μm.

In a high clay ore, clay material 26 separated from the fines 16 will typically comprise about 10% of the initial weight of the ore and about 5 to 10% of its gold values. Further, because of its low refractory nature, clay material 26 may be further processed to recover the gold values it contains using a traditional cyanide mill leaching process such as counter current decantation or carbon-in-pulp. Before processing clay material 26 in one of these traditional cyanide mill leaching processes, however, the pulp density of the clay material should be increased using a thickener 28 until a pulp density of about 30 to 40% is achieved.

After the clays have been removed from the fines 16, the refractory pyrite particles are also separated out to form refractory pyrite concentrate 20, which can be added to heap 18 as explained above. The refractory pyrite particles are preferably separated from clay depleted fines 30 using flotation or a gravity separation technique.

Three preferred methods for separating the refractory sulfide particles from the clay depleted fines 30 are now described. The first method entails fine grinding the clay depleted fines 30 until a particle size of less than about -200 mesh is achieved. This is preferably accomplished in ball mill 34. The refractory pyrite materials are then removed from the material 30 using a flotation cell 36 with a xanthate collector. The floated pyrite material from flotation cell 36 forms the pyrite concentrate 20.

A second method of producing pyrite concentrate 20 from material 30 comprises separating material 30 into two fractions using a hydrocyclone 38: the first, comprising -200 mesh material 40, and the second comprising coarse sand particles, which are greater than about 200 mesh, and heavier pyrite particles. The material which is less than 200 mesh is further treated in xanthate flotation cell 36 to remove refractory sulfides. The floated refractory sulfides and the coarse sand particles and heavier pyrite are then recombined to form pyrite concentrate 20. This method differs from the first pyrite concentration method in that instead of crushing all of material 30 to less than -200 mesh, the sand particles greater than 200 mesh and the heavier pyrite minerals in material 30 are simply separated from material 30 and then added to the floated pyrite from the -200 mesh material 40.

The third method of producing pyrite concentrate 20 from clay depleted fines 30 comprises using a gravity technique such as a spiral classifier or shaker table to remove the heavier sulfide minerals from the remainder of material 30.

The tail material 32, which remains after the refractory sulfide fraction has been removed from the clay depleted fines material 30, comprises approximately 20 to 30% of the initial weight of the ore and about 5 to 10% of its gold, approximately 85% of which is recoverable in a traditional cyanide mill leaching process such as counter current decantation or carbon-in-pulp. Thus, tail material 32 is not very refractory and may be treated with clay material 26 in a traditional mill cyanide leaching process to help improve the overall recovery of the process.

After heap 18 is biooxidized, the precious metal in the pretreated ore can be extracted using a conventional lixiviant such as cyanide or thiourea, preferably cyanide. Of course, however, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, if the refractory sulfide ore is also refractory due to carbonaceous matter contained in the ore, additional processing steps must be employed to reduce the preg-robbing propensity of the ore prior to lixivation as explained above.

EXAMPLE 1

A sample of 16 kg of refractory sulfide ore with approximately 0.04 oz/ton of gold and 3.5% of sulfide sulphur was crushed to - 1/4 inch. The ore sample was then separated by wet screening into a + 1/8 to - 1/4 inch, a +30 mesh to - 1/8 inch, and a -30 mesh material fractions. The -30 mesh material was further separated into a pyrite fraction, a sand fraction, and a clay fraction by gravity separation. The sand fraction was further processed by fine grinding in a ball mill for about one hour. This material was then floated with xanthate as a collector.

Each fraction was then dried and weighed and analyzed for gold. The + 1/8 to - 1/4 inch material represented 51% of the weight and 18% of the gold at 0.48 ppm Au. The +30 mesh to - 1/8 inch material represented 28% of the weight and 32% of the gold at 1.47 ppm Au. The total pyrite, which included both the gravity separated pyrite and the pyrite concentrate from the flotation of the sand, represented 4.7% of the weight and 35% of the gold at 9.8 ppm Au. The remaining sand flotation tail and clay material represented 16% of the weight and 14.6% of the gold at about 1.2 ppm Au.

The + 1/8 to - 1/4 inch material and the +30 mesh to - 1/8 inch material were combined according to their weight percentages. The combined material was adjusted to a pH of 2.0 with 10% sulfuric acid at 30 ml/kg. The one mixture was then poured into a column and aerated from the bottom with at least 1 of air/min/m2 and liquid dilute basal solutions of (NH4)2 SO4 0.04 g/l MgSO4.7H2 O at 0.04 g/l and KH2 PO4 at 0.004 g/l were added to the top at about 15 ml/hour. Thiobacillus ferrooxidans bacteria was added to the top of the column and washed into the column with the liquid flow. This procedure allowed for good air flow and liquid flow and also migration of bacteria through the column. After about one month the effluent from the column showed good bioleaching of iron at about 0.1% per day.

EXAMPLE 2

A second sample of ore from the same mine as in Example 1 was crushed to - 3/8 inches. Four 23 Kg splits of this sample were combined and wet screened into a + 1/4 inch, a + 1/8 to - 1/4 inch, a +10 mesh to - 1/8 inch, a +16 mesh to -10 mesh, a +30 to -16 mesh, a +60 to -30 mesh, and a -60 mesh fraction. The +60 to -30 mesh and the -60 mesh fraction were used to evaluate a number of gravity separations to make a pyrite fraction a sand fraction and a clay fraction. The dry weights of each size fraction were used to calculate the weight percentage of the size fraction. Each size fraction was also analyzed for the amount of gold, iron and gold extraction by traditional cyanide leaching (see Table 1).

The five size fractions larger than 30 mesh were put into individual columns for biooxidation. Bacteria and nutrients were added as in Example 1 and air was blown in from the bottom or top of the column. The progress of the biooxidation was monitored by measuring the amount of iron leached from the ore by using atomic absorption analysis of the nutrient solution passing through the column. The approximate total amount of iron in each size fraction of the ore was calculated from the weight of the size fraction and an iron analysis of a representative sample of the ore. The percent iron leached and the average percent iron leached each day are ploted against time for all five size fractions in FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively.

              TABLE 1______________________________________ORE SIZE FRACTION ANALYSIS        GRAVITY                     BIOOX. WT     SEPARATION  Au    Fe  Au %  %SIZE  %      (wt %)      (ppm) %   REC.  RECOV.______________________________________+ 1/4 20.9               0.57  2.4 24.3  50.6 (15) 1/8- 1/4 32.3               0.78  2.6 38.8  62.7 (24) 10- 1/8 4.89               0.525 3.8 47.3  76.1 (40)16-10 8.49               1.22  3.8 44.3  74.7 (46)30-16 9.36               1.92  5.8 37.3  84.4 (53)60-30 6.65   pyrite 1.6% 13.56     47.1        sand 5.02%  0.43      75.3-60   17.3   pyrite 2.68%                    7.81      69.9        clay 14.62% 1.48      86.5______________________________________ Au (ppm) = Concentration of gold in size fraction Fe % = Concentration of Fe in size fraction in weight percent. Au % Rec. = Percent gold recovered from size fraction by performing a traditional cyanide leach test without biooxidizing ore first. Bioox. % Recov. = Percent gold recovered by cyanide leach after biooxidation. The percent of biooxidation for each sample is given in parentheses.

After several months of biooxidation, samples were taken from each column and the percent iron leached noted. The partially biooxidized ore was then leached with cyanide in the same way the original unoxidized samples were. The gold extraction of the unoxidized sample and the biooxidized sample are compared in Table 1. The percent biooxidation for each size fraction is reported in Table 1 in parentheses. From this data one can see that the smaller size fractions biooxidized at a faster rate. Also, all the size fractions show an increase in gold extraction after being biooxidized.

The +60 to -30 mesh and -60 mesh size fractions were also analyzed for gold extraction. The sand tails from a shaker table separation of the refractory pyrite from the +60 to -30 mesh fraction was fairly low in gold, but the gold was cyanide extractable without biooxidation (75%). The very fine sand and clay from the -60 mesh fraction was higher in gold and in gold extraction (86%). This indicated that no further oxidation of the very fine sand and clay materials in this size fraction was required.

The removal of the small size fractions (i.e., the size fractions having a particle size less than 30 mesh) including the clay fraction allowed all the columns to have excellent air flow. Columns made with whole ore or whole ore with agglomeration often would become plugged, inhibiting air flow. Thus, by separating the fines and clays, large scale heaps may be constructed without having to use larger crush sizes (i.e., 3/4 inch or larger) to achieve good air flow.

The pyrite fractions of the -30 and -60 mesh fractions were both high in gold and refractory to cyanide leaching. These pyrite fractions were combined and then milled to -200 mesh in a ball mill. The -200 mesh pyrite concentrate was used in shake flask experiments to determine the amount of gold extraction as a function of percent biooxidation (see FIG.4). In preparing these tests, 75 ml of a 500 ppm cyanide solution was added to 30 gm of the pyrite concentrate. The solution and ore was then rolled at 10 rpm for 96 hrs. before the cyanide solution was tested to determine the amount of gold extracted.

Some of the pyrite from the gravity separated fines was further processed by grinding to -200 mesh and floating with xanthate to from a concentrate of over 50% pyrite. A sample of this concentrate weighing 500 gm was then mixed with 500 ml of solution containing iron oxidizing bacteria at greater than 108 cells per ml and 3000 ppm ferric sulfate. After one hour, the 500 gm sample of pyrite concentrate suspended in 500 ml of ferric-bacteria solution was poured directly onto the top of the + 1/4 inch ore column, containing about 15 Kg of ore. This was done after biooxidation of the column ore had been in progress for over 300 days. The black liquid spread quickly down through the column with most of the pyrite concentrate being retained by the column. The small amount of pyrite concentrate that did pass through the column was poured back onto the top of the column and was retained by the column on the second pass. The pyrite appeared to be evenly distributed throughout the column and did not inhibit the air flow.

Liquid at pH 1.8 was dripped onto the top of the column, as had been done throughout the experiment. The flow rate was about 200 ml per day. The liquid collected after three days had dropped in Eh from about 650 mV to 560 mV. The pH was still at about 1.8 as it had been for a long time. The iron concentration in the liquid was 2800 ppm, which was just a little lower than the iron concentration of the added bacteria solution. Two days after adding the pyrite concentrate to the column, the iron concentration in the off solution had increased to 4000 ppm and the pH had dropped to 1.6 indicating that biooxidation of the pyrite had started. FIGS. 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the change in Eh, pH, and iron concentration of the colmumn effluent, respectively over time.

Although the invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments and specific examples, it will readily be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that many modifications and adaptions of the invention are possible without departure from the spirit and scope of the invention as claimed hereinafter. For example, while the processes according to the present invention have been described in terms of recovering gold from refractory sulfide or refractory carbonaceous sulfide ores, the processes are equally applicable to other precious metals found in these ores such as silver and platinum.

Patent Citations
Cited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US588476 *Feb 1, 1897Aug 17, 1897 Of denver
US3777004 *May 10, 1971Dec 4, 1973Hazen ResearchProcess for heap leaching ores
US3819797 *Oct 14, 1971Jun 25, 1974Kennecott Copper CorpCyclic leach-precipitation process for recovering copper values from bodies of ore material containing copper minerals
US3949051 *Jan 7, 1974Apr 6, 1976Franz PawlekHydrometallurgical process for extracting copper from chalcopyrite or bornite concentrates
US4017309 *Mar 28, 1975Apr 12, 1977Holmes & Narver, Inc.Thin layer leaching method
US4056261 *Feb 17, 1976Nov 1, 1977Darrah Robert MRecovery of gold and silver from mine-run dumps or crushed ores using a portable ion-exchange carbon plant
US4256705 *Apr 17, 1980Mar 17, 1981The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The InteriorLeaching agglomerated gold - silver ores
US4256706 *Apr 17, 1980Mar 17, 1981The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The InteriorLeaching agglomerated gold - silver ores
US4279868 *Mar 24, 1980Jul 21, 1981Kohorn H VonMethod for leaching metal bearing ores
US4301121 *Nov 10, 1980Nov 17, 1981Kohorn H VonMethod for leaching metal bearing ores
US4318892 *Nov 10, 1980Mar 9, 1982Kohorn H VonHeap leaching device
US4324764 *Jul 23, 1980Apr 13, 1982International Resources Company, Ltd.Apparatus for continuous leaching of ores
US4343773 *Jan 29, 1981Aug 10, 1982University Of Utah Research FoundationEnhanced leaching of minerals which form product layers
US4374097 *Apr 16, 1981Feb 15, 1983Neha InternationalMethod for recovering precious metals
US4402831 *Mar 10, 1982Sep 6, 1983Imperial Chemical Industries PlcEffluent treatment
US4424194 *Jan 4, 1982Jan 3, 1984Hughes Robert MProcess for extraction of metals from leachable ores and forming of building materials
US4526615 *Jan 29, 1985Jul 2, 1985Johnson Paul HCellular heap leach process and apparatus
US4557905 *Sep 13, 1984Dec 10, 1985Kamyr, Inc.Leaching and washing a flocculated slurry having a fiber content
US4571387 *Mar 3, 1983Feb 18, 1986British Columbia Research CouncilBiological-acid leach process
US4585548 *Apr 26, 1984Apr 29, 1986Bp Australia LimitedRecovery of metal values from mineral ores by incorporation in coal-oil agglomerates
US4690894 *Sep 20, 1985Sep 1, 1987Advanced Mineral Technologies, Inc.Treatment of microorganisms with alkaline solution to enhance metal uptake properties
US4721526 *Aug 13, 1986Jan 26, 1988Kamyr, Inc.Heap leaching with oxygen
US4729788 *Jan 23, 1987Mar 8, 1988Advanced Mineral Technologies, Inc.Thermophilic microbial treatment of precious metal ores
US4740243 *Apr 30, 1986Apr 26, 1988Ensci, Inc.Metal value recovery from metal sulfide containing ores
US4752332 *Apr 30, 1986Jun 21, 1988Ensci, Inc.Treating manganese-containing ores with a metal sulfide
US4758417 *Oct 23, 1986Jul 19, 1988Shell Oil CompanyGas treatment process
US4778519 *Apr 7, 1987Oct 18, 1988Batric PesicRecovery of precious metals from a thiourea leach
US4789481 *Apr 19, 1987Dec 6, 1988Advanced Mineral Technologies, Inc.Metal recovery
US4977181 *Dec 18, 1987Dec 11, 1990Ciba-Geigy CorporationTromethamine salt of 1-methyl-beta-oxo-alpha-(phenylcarbamoyl)-2-pyrrolepropionitrile
US5062956 *Mar 20, 1990Nov 5, 1991Allied-Signal Inc.Bioremediation of chromium (VI) contaminated aqueous systems by sulfate reducing bacteria
US5127942 *Aug 20, 1991Jul 7, 1992Newmont Mining CorporationMicrobial consortium treatment of refractory precious metal ores
US5162105 *Nov 26, 1990Nov 10, 1992Geobiotics, Inc.Processes to recover and reconcentrate gold from its ores with microorganisms
US5196052 *Jun 19, 1992Mar 23, 1993Nalco Chemical CompanyBacterial-assisted heap leaching of ores
US5232676 *Sep 4, 1992Aug 3, 1993Bayer AktiengesellschaftProcess for the biological purification of waste air streams
US5236677 *Mar 13, 1992Aug 17, 1993Grupo Cydsa S.A. De C.V.Biological process for the elimination of sulphur compounds present in gas mixtures
US5244493 *Jul 2, 1992Sep 14, 1993Newmont Gold Co.Biometallurgical treatment of precious metal ores having refractory carbon content
US5246486 *Oct 18, 1992Sep 21, 1993Newmont Gold Co.Biooxidation process for recovery of gold from heaps of low-grade sulfidic and carbonaceous sulfidic ore materials
US5332559 *Jun 3, 1992Jul 26, 1994Newmont Gold Co.Biooxidation process for recovery of metal values from sulphur-containing ore materials
US5431717 *Dec 3, 1993Jul 11, 1995Geobiotics, Inc.Method for rendering refractory sulfide ores more susceptible to biooxidation
CA1234290A *Sep 27, 1984Mar 22, 1988Donald R. WeirRecovery of gold from refractory auriferous iron- containing sulphidic material
CA1234291A *Sep 27, 1984Mar 22, 1988Donald R. WeirRecovery of gold from auriferous refractory iron- containing sulphidic material
CA1234991A *Sep 27, 1984Apr 12, 1988Donald R. WeirRecovery of gold from auriferous refractory iron- containing sulphidic ore
CA1235907A *Sep 27, 1984May 3, 1988Donald R. WeirRecovery of gold from refractory auriferous iron- containing sulphidic concentrates
EP0305131A2 *Aug 22, 1988Mar 1, 1989TETRONICS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITEDA process for the recovery of gold
EP0522978A1 *Jul 10, 1992Jan 13, 1993Newmont Mining CorporationBiooxidation process for recovery of metal values from sulfur-containing ore materials
GB2180829A * Title not available
Non-Patent Citations
Reference
1"A Powerful Technology for Gold Mining in Peru Biooxidation of Gold Concentrates in Arsenopyrite" Teor ia y Acci on del Mundo Minero, Jun. 1991 (English Language translation also enclosed).
2"Treatment of Refractory Ores: Progressing Technology . . . Progress in the Treatement of Gold Ore" Teor ia y Acci on del Mundo Minero, Apr. 1992 (English Language translation also enclosed).
3"Up-To-Date Metallurgy (Progressing Technologies) Bioleaching of Refractory Gold Sulphides and Applications in Peruvian Mines" Teor ia y Acci on del Mundo Minero, Jun. 1993 (English Language translation also enclosed).
4 *A Powerful Technology for Gold Mining in Peru Biooxidation of Gold Concentrates in Arsenopyrite Teor i a y Acci o n del Mundo Minero, Jun. 1991 (English Language translation also enclosed).
5 *Ahonen, L., et al., Redox Potential Controlled Bacterial Leaching Of Chalcopyrite Ores, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 571 578.
6Ahonen, L., et al., Redox Potential-Controlled Bacterial Leaching Of Chalcopyrite Ores, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 571-578.
7 *Brierley, C. L., Mineral Bio Processing: Opportunities in Extractive Metallurgy and Environmental Control, NIST, Nov. 1993, pp. 1 29.
8Brierley, C. L., Mineral Bio-Processing: Opportunities in Extractive Metallurgy and Environmental Control, NIST, Nov. 1993, pp. 1-29.
9 *Brierly, J. A., et al., Biooxidation Heap Concept For Treatment Of Refractory Gold Ore, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 437 448.
10Brierly, J. A., et al., Biooxidation-Heap Concept For Treatment Of Refractory Gold Ore, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 437-448.
11 *Browner, R. E., et al., Studies on the Heap Leaching Characteristics of Western Australian Gold Ores, World Gold (1991).
12 *Fraser, G. M., Mixing and Oxygen Transfer in Mineral Bioleaching, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 16.1 16.11.
13Fraser, G. M., Mixing and Oxygen Transfer in Mineral Bioleaching, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 16.1-16.11.
14 *Fraser, K. S., et al., Processing of Refractory Gold Ores, Minerals Engineering, vol. 4, Nos. 7 11, pp. 1029 1041, 1991.
15Fraser, K. S., et al., Processing of Refractory Gold Ores, Minerals Engineering, vol. 4, Nos. 7-11, pp. 1029-1041, 1991.
16 *Harrington, J. G., et al., Engineering Aspects Of Heap Biooxidation Of Course Crushed Refractory Gold Ores, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 521 530.
17Harrington, J. G., et al., Engineering Aspects Of Heap Biooxidation Of Course-Crushed Refractory Gold Ores, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 521-530.
18 *Henley, K. J., et al., The Mineralogy of Refractory Gold Ores, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 5.1 5.13.
19Henley, K. J., et al., The Mineralogy of Refractory Gold Ores, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 5.1-5.13.
20 *Kelley, B. C., et al., Bioremediation Applications to Waste Processing in the Mining Industry, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 10.1 10.10.
21Kelley, B. C., et al., Bioremediation--Applications to Waste Processing in the Mining Industry, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 10.1-10.10.
22 *Lizama, H. M., et al., Bacterial Leaching Of Copper And Zinc From A Sulfide Ore by A Mixed Culture Of Thiobacillus Ferrooxidans And Thiobacillus Thiooxidans In Laboratory Scale And Pilot Plant Scale Columns, Biohydrometallurgy (1989) pp. 519 531.
23Lizama, H. M., et al., Bacterial Leaching Of Copper And Zinc From A Sulfide Ore by A Mixed Culture Of Thiobacillus Ferrooxidans And Thiobacillus Thiooxidans In Laboratory Scale And Pilot Plant Scale Columns, Biohydrometallurgy (1989) pp. 519-531.
24 *Merson, J., Mining With Microbes, New Scientist, 4, Jan. 1991, pp. 17 19.
25Merson, J., Mining With Microbes, New Scientist, 4, Jan. 1991, pp. 17-19.
26 *Mihaylov, B., et al., Biooxidation of A Sulfide Gold Ore in Columns, Mineral Bioprocessing, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 163 177.
27Mihaylov, B., et al., Biooxidation of A Sulfide Gold Ore in Columns, Mineral Bioprocessing, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 163-177.
28 *Mihaylov, B., et al., Gold Recovery from a Low Grade Ore Employing Biological Pretreatment in Columns, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 499 511.
29Mihaylov, B., et al., Gold Recovery from a Low-Grade Ore Employing Biological Pretreatment in Columns, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 499-511.
30 *Nicholson, H., et al., Selection of a Refractory Gold Treatment Process for the Sansu Project, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 20.1 20.11.
31Nicholson, H., et al., Selection of a Refractory Gold Treatment Process for the Sansu Project, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 20.1-20.11.
32 *Pantelis, G., et al., Optimising Oxidation Rates In Heaps Of Pyritic Material, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 731 738.
33Pantelis, G., et al., Optimising Oxidation Rates In Heaps Of Pyritic Material, Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (1993) pp. 731-738.
34 *Ritchie, A. I. M., et al., Optimisation of Oxidation Rates in Dump Oxidation of Pyrite Gold Ores, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 9.1 9.8.
35Ritchie, A. I. M., et al., Optimisation of Oxidation Rates in Dump Oxidation of Pyrite-Gold Ores, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 9.1-9.8.
36 *Torma, A., Mineral Bioprocessing, Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 1.1 1.10.
37Torma, A., Mineral Bioprocessing, Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 1.1-1.10.
38 *Treatment of Refractory Ores: Progressing Technology . . . Progress in the Treatement of Gold Ore Teor i a y Acci o n del Mundo Minero, Apr. 1992 (English Language translation also enclosed).
39 *Untung, S. R., et al., Application of Bio Leaching to Some Indonesian Sulphide Ores ( A Preliminary Study ), Biomine 93 Conference, Mar. 22 23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 11.1 11.10.
40Untung, S. R., et al., Application of Bio-Leaching to Some Indonesian Sulphide Ores (A Preliminary Study), Biomine '93 Conference, Mar. 22-23, 1993, Adelaide, South Africa, pp. 11.1-11.10.
41 *Up To Date Metallurgy (Progressing Technologies) Bioleaching of Refractory Gold Sulphides and Applications in Peruvian Mines Teor i a y Acci o n del Mundo Minero, Jun. 1993 (English Language translation also enclosed).
Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US5766930 *Apr 22, 1996Jun 16, 1998Geobiotics, Inc.Method of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US5873927 *May 16, 1997Feb 23, 1999Echo Bay Mines, LimitedIntegrated, tank/heap biooxidation process
US5948375 *May 27, 1998Sep 7, 1999Billiton Sa LimitedBiological oxidation of sulphide minerals to recover gold, silver, platinum group metals and base metals
US5961691 *Oct 1, 1997Oct 5, 1999Noranda, Inc.Recovery of lead and others metals from smelter flue dusts
US6083730 *Jan 18, 1996Jul 4, 2000Geobiotics, Inc.Nonstirred bioreactor for processing refractory sulfide concentrates and method for operating same
US6096113 *Feb 22, 1999Aug 1, 2000Echo Bay Mines, LimitedIntegrated, closed tank biooxidation/heap bioleach/precious metal leach processes for treating refractory sulfide ores
US6107065 *Jul 1, 1997Aug 22, 2000Geobiotics, Inc.Nonstirred bioreactor for processing refractory sulfide concentrates and method for operating same
US6110253 *Dec 14, 1998Aug 29, 2000Geobiotics, Inc.High temperature heap bioleaching process
US6146444 *Oct 14, 1997Nov 14, 2000Geobiotics, Inc.Method for recovering metal value from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US6159726 *Jun 12, 1998Dec 12, 2000Geobiotics, Inc.Method of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US6207443Mar 2, 1998Mar 27, 2001Placer Dome, Inc.Method for initiating heap bioleaching of sulfidic ores
US6379919May 26, 2000Apr 30, 2002Oxidor Corporation IncMethod for isolating thiocyanate resistant bacteria
US6387155Nov 10, 2000May 14, 2002Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US6387239Nov 17, 1999May 14, 2002Bhp Minerals International, Inc.Recovery of metals from ore
US6410304Dec 12, 2000Jun 25, 2002Geobiotics, LlcMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US6498031May 26, 2000Dec 24, 2002Oxidor Corporation, Inc.Column reactor for testing and evaluating refractory ores
US6652622May 14, 2002Nov 25, 2003Geobiotics, Llc.Method for recovering metal values from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US6676909Jul 25, 2001Jan 13, 2004Phelphs Dodge CorporationMethod for recovery of metals from metal-containing materials using medium temperature pressure leaching
US6736877Nov 23, 2001May 18, 2004Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.Heap bioleaching process for the extraction of zinc
US6855527Jun 20, 2002Feb 15, 2005Geobiotics LlcMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US7156894Nov 24, 2003Jan 2, 2007Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US7160354Oct 12, 2004Jan 9, 2007Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US7341700Jan 12, 2004Mar 11, 2008Phelps Dodge CorporationMethod for recovery of metals from metal-containing materials using medium temperature pressure leaching
US7416882Oct 21, 2004Aug 26, 2008Geobiotics, LlcMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US7429286Jan 2, 2007Sep 30, 2008Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US7455715 *Jul 10, 2002Nov 25, 2008Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.Heap bioleaching process for the extraction of zinc
US7455716Jan 9, 2007Nov 25, 2008Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US7476308Oct 29, 2004Jan 13, 2009Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for multiple stage direct electrowinning of copper
US7485216Oct 28, 2005Feb 3, 2009Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solvent/solution extraction
US7641714 *Sep 30, 2008Jan 5, 2010Geo Biotics, LLCMethod for recovering metal values from refractory sulfide ore
US7658783Nov 19, 2008Feb 9, 2010Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US7722756Nov 19, 2008May 25, 2010Freeport-Mcmoran CorporationProcess for multiple stage direct electrowinning of copper
US7736487May 1, 2007Jun 15, 2010Freeport-Mcmoran CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solution extraction
US7736488Dec 29, 2008Jun 15, 2010Freeport-Mcmoran CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solvent/solution extraction
US8012238Jan 26, 2010Sep 6, 2011Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US8021870Aug 26, 2008Sep 20, 2011Geobiotics, LlcMethod of biotreating a solid material comprising an organic compound
US8029598Dec 31, 2009Oct 4, 2011Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from refractory sulfide ore
US8030055Aug 26, 2008Oct 4, 2011Geobiotics, LlcMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US20030013166 *Jun 20, 2002Jan 16, 2003Geobiotics, Inc., A California CorporationMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US20040146438 *Jan 12, 2004Jul 29, 2004Marsden John OMethod for recovery of metals from metal-containing materials using medium temperature pressure leaching
US20050005737 *Nov 24, 2003Jan 13, 2005Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from concentrates of sulfide minerals
US20050066773 *Jul 10, 2002Mar 31, 2005Harlamovs Juris RHeap bioleaching process for the extraction of zinc
US20050103162 *Oct 12, 2004May 19, 2005Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US20050109163 *Oct 29, 2004May 26, 2005Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for multiple stage direct electrowinning of copper
US20050112741 *Oct 21, 2004May 26, 2005Geobiotics, Inc., A California CorporationMethod of biotreatment for solid materials in a nonstirred surface bioreactor
US20050126923 *Oct 29, 2004Jun 16, 2005Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using medium temperature pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solvent/solution extraction
US20060144717 *Oct 28, 2005Jul 6, 2006Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solvent/solution extraction
US20070107550 *Jan 2, 2007May 17, 2007Geobiotics, Inc., A California CorporationMethod For Recovering Metal Values From Concentrates of Sulfide Minerals
US20070193413 *Jul 10, 2002Aug 23, 2007Harlamovs Juris RHeap bioleaching process for the extraction of zinc
US20080311647 *Aug 26, 2008Dec 18, 2008Kohr William JMethod of Biotreating a Solid Material Comprising an Organic Compound
US20090035833 *Sep 30, 2008Feb 5, 2009Geobiotics, Llc.Method for recovering metal values from refractory sulfide ore
US20090071839 *Nov 19, 2008Mar 19, 2009Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for multiple stage direct electrowinning of copper
US20090101518 *Dec 29, 2008Apr 23, 2009Phelps Dodge CorporationProcess for recovery of copper from copper-bearing material using pressure leaching, direct electrowinning and solvent/solution extraction
US20090126532 *Nov 19, 2008May 21, 2009Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US20090158893 *Nov 24, 2008Jun 25, 2009Barrick Gold CorporationMicrobial pre-treatment of double refractory gold ores
US20100126314 *Jan 26, 2010May 27, 2010Geobiotics, LlcHigh temperature heap bioleaching process
US20100188209 *Feb 2, 2010Jul 29, 2010Peiker Acustic Gmbh & Co.Wireless tracking and monitoring system
US20100199808 *Dec 31, 2009Aug 12, 2010Geobiotics, LlcMethod for recovering metal values from refractory sulfide ore
WO1998007892A1 *Jun 4, 1997Feb 26, 1998Yes TechnologiesMethod and apparatus for biocatalyzed anaerobic oxidation of metal sulfides
WO2001036693A2 *Oct 31, 2000May 25, 2001Bhp Minerals International, Inc.Recovery of metals from ore by bioleaching with sulfur addition
WO2001036693A3 *Oct 31, 2000Nov 15, 2001Bhp Minerals Int IncRecovery of metals from ore by bioleaching with sulfur addition
Classifications
U.S. Classification75/712, 75/744, 423/DIG.17, 423/29
International ClassificationC22B11/00, C22B1/00, C22B3/18, B01D53/00, C12P3/00, C22B11/08
Cooperative ClassificationY02P10/234, Y10S423/17, C22B1/00, C22B11/08, C12P3/00, C22B3/18, C22B11/00, C22B11/04
European ClassificationC22B11/00, C22B11/04, C22B3/18, C22B1/00, C12P3/00, C22B11/08
Legal Events
DateCodeEventDescription
Feb 6, 1995ASAssignment
Owner name: GEOBIOTICS, INC., CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:KOHR, WILLIAM J.;REEL/FRAME:007396/0149
Effective date: 19950123
Jul 1, 1997CCCertificate of correction
Jun 8, 1998ASAssignment
Owner name: PYRAMID VENTURES, INC., NEW YORK
Free format text: NOTICE OF GRANT OF SECURITY INTERESTS IN PATENTS;ASSIGNOR:GEOBIOTICS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:009245/0001
Effective date: 19980508
Apr 28, 2000FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
Jul 23, 2001ASAssignment
Owner name: GEOBIOTICS, LLC, COLORADO
Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:GEOBIOTICS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:012002/0001
Effective date: 20001228
Owner name: GEOBIOTICS, INC., CALIFORNIA
Free format text: MERGER OF GEOBIOTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, WITH AND INTO GEOBIOTICS DELAWARE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION AND SIMULTANEOUS NAME CHANGE TO GEOBIOTICS, INC.;ASSIGNOR:GEOBIOTICS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:012002/0011
Effective date: 19950801
May 4, 2004FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
May 2, 2008FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 12